Return-path: Received: from mail6.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.117.8]:45893 "EHLO mail6.sea5.speakeasy.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752496AbXBDSn0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Feb 2007 13:43:26 -0500 Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 10:43:22 -0800 From: Jouni Malinen To: Jon Smirl Cc: Pavel Roskin , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: SoftMAC vs FullMAC Message-ID: <20070204184322.GC6632@jm.kir.nu> References: <9e4733910702040922n63736d27h7ab027dc90ae8989@mail.gmail.com> <20070204123048.4bhesocg4kosgscg@webmail.spamcop.net> <9e4733910702041031i5edd6dfeq7f8c5179fee5e00e@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <9e4733910702041031i5edd6dfeq7f8c5179fee5e00e@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 01:31:27PM -0500, Jon Smirl wrote: > It's not even clear to me that doing encryption is a wireless > co-processor is a win. It is almost certain that the host can perform > the same algorithms many times faster that an embedded wireless > processor. Moving encryption onto the host reduces the latency of the > connection. Well, maybe in some use cases like a modern desktop/laptop CPU with plenty of CPU power, but hardware acceleration for encryption is a huge win on most embedded systems (e.g., APs). And like I mentioned, some FullMAC designs do not even allow the encryption to be moved to the host.. -- Jouni Malinen PGP id EFC895FA